9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
Rate of Customs duty applicable to imported goods stored in the warehouse. Analysis: 1. The appeal filed by M/s Eimco Elecon (India) Ltd raised the issue of determining the rate of Customs duty applicable to imported goods stored in the warehouse. The Appellants imported tunneling and mining machinery components and placed them in the warehouse. The Collector rejected their request for an extension of the warehouse period, leading to the Department initiating action under Section 72(1) and (2) of the Customs Act, directing the Appellants to pay duty, interest, and other charges. Subsequently, the Assistant Collector denied the benefit of a specific Notification, leading to a dispute over the duty rates. 2. The Collector (Appeals) remanded the matter, allowing the Appellants to produce the required certificate and interpreting the duty payable under the Notification differently. However, the Department filed an appeal against the assessment done by the Superintendent based on new duty rates introduced in 1992. The Collector (Appeals) set aside the order, emphasizing that the Appellants kept the goods in the warehouse without justification and that the concept of 'actual removal/clearance' was not applicable, leading to a dispute over the applicable duty rates. 3. The Appellant's advocate argued that the Department's appeal was unjustified as the Collector (Appeals) had deemed the Assistant Collector's order as incorrect, and the goods were cleared based on the revised assessment. Referring to a relevant case law, the advocate emphasized the importance of the duty rate at the actual removal of goods. In response, the Department reiterated its position based on a Supreme Court decision regarding goods improperly removed from a warehouse, emphasizing the duty payable at the date of deemed removal. 4. The Tribunal analyzed the facts, noting that the warehousing period had expired, and extensions were not permitted. Citing the Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal concluded that the duty rate applicable would be that in force on the date the warehousing period ended. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from a previous judgment and upheld the Collector (Appeals) order, highlighting that the rate of duty effective from a subsequent date cannot be applied due to the deemed removal of goods. 5. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, stating that the non-filing of an appeal against a specific order was irrelevant as the Revenue was challenging the assessment based on new duty rates. Considering the legal provisions and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the impugned order and upheld the decision regarding the applicable duty rates for the imported goods stored in the warehouse.
|
